软土结构性破损的孔径分布试验研究

采用压汞法对天然结构性软土压缩过程孔隙大小分布的演化进行了试验研究，结果表明，当荷载超过结构屈服应力后，尺寸较大的团粒间孔隙首先发生破坏，随着荷载的增大，越来越小的孔隙受到影响，但团粒内孔隙在压缩过程中不发生变化；根据试验结果提出了孔隙结构破损势的概念，并用其表征孔隙分布随荷载变化的规律。     

大兴安岭浅覆盖区生态地质评价方法初探——以1∶25万区调呼中镇幅为例

通过野外调查，在收集统计大量基础地质、经济地质、环境地质、旅游地质、农(林)业地质等数据信息的基础上，在GIS技术指导下，采用定量定性相结合的半定量分析评价方法，对森林浅覆盖区生态地质现状及各类资源的开发利用潜力进行了综合评价。在研究和探讨森林浅覆盖区生态地质综合评价方法的基础上，提出了森林浅覆盖区生态地质评价模型，确定了综合参数，划分了生态地质类型。     

成都市农业区划与城市生态环境保护构想

扼要介绍了成都市区域土壤多目标地球化学调查的新近展，从地球化学和农业生态的角度论述了成都市农业区划发展构想，并探讨人工生态系统与城市生态环保建设的模式与构想建议。     

碳酸盐岩潜山储层垂向分带及油气藏流体分布规律

从古岩溶形成的基本条件出发，提出可溶性岩石和具溶蚀性的流动水是岩溶发育的基本条件，古岩溶与古风化壳常共生．受储层结构的非均质性、构造圈闭分割性、流体分布不完善性及高地温场等因素影响，流体在古潜山奥陶系储层的分布很复杂，孔、洞、缝发育程度及搭配好坏是决定油气产量的核心，圈闭条件与流体分布也密切相关．     

洛阳市水资源可利用量研究

以洛阳市为对象，对区域水资源的可利用量进行了研究。区域水资源量包括地表水实际可利用量和地下水实际可利用量。将地表径流中基流部分按比例划出，与河道汛期弃水量加在一起作为河道的生态需水量，从地表水资源量中扣除生态需水量后可得地表水的实际可利用量。将难以利用的地下水量从地下水资源量中扣除后可得地下水实际可利用量。     

Weibull分布的信息熵在地震预报中的应用研究

根据统计分布与信息熵理论，定义了震级信息熵Hm和地震间隔时间信息熵Ht，并推导了它们的计算公式。通过时空扫描和计算，发现强震前1～3年Hm和Ht出现低值异常，与地震有较好的对应关系，可以作为一组中期或中短期预测指标。     

最大熵原理与地震频度-震级关系

地震是一种随机事件 ,它的发生具有极大的不确定性 ,因而可以用熵来进行描述。地震以最无序的方式在各地发生 ,意味着地震熵达到了极大值。古登堡 (Gutenberg)和里克特 (Richter)根据资料和经验得出的地震频度 -震级关系式实际上是在给定的约束条件下 ,当地震熵取极大值时得到的一种负指数分布。文中从最大熵原理得出了同一形式的地震频度 -震级关系 ,使它的来源从理论上得到了解释     

油气差异泵吸作用机理探讨——以泌阳凹陷为例

通过对泌阳凹陷油气成藏过程的系统研究,发现在差异抬升过程中,深凹源岩区抬升幅度小,凹陷四周圈闭发育区抬升幅度大,差异抬升运动导致源岩和圈闭之间的势能差急剧增大,从而促使油气大规模沿砂体向圈闭充注,这一过程类似于水泵抽水的过程,据此,文中提出了油气泵吸作用和油气差异泵吸作用的概念及机理,并以泌阳凹陷为例讨论了油气差异泵吸作用的形成条件、主要影响因素及油气差异泵吸作用对油气差异分布的控制作用。研究表明:影响油气差异泵吸作用的因素主要有势能梯度、通道质量和泵源配置及油气运移距离;泌阳凹陷油气分布总体上受成藏运聚系统的控制,在各运聚系统内油气分布受油气差异泵吸作用的控制,其中势能梯度、泵源配置及油气运移距离是影响油气差异分布的主要因素,而在每一个大泵(复合泵)内部,通道质量差异是影响油气差异分布的主要因素。     

Optimum multiple tuned mass dampers for structures under the ground acceleration based on the uniform distribution of system parameters

The five MTMD models, with natural frequencies being uniformly distributed around their mean frequency, have been recently presented by the first author. They are shown to have the near‐zero optimum average damping ratio (more precisely, for a given mass ratio there is an upper limit on the total number, beyond which the near‐zero optimum average damping ratio occurs). In this paper, the eight new MTMD models (i.e. the UM‐MTMD1～UM‐MTMD3, US‐MTMD1～US‐MTMD3, UD‐MTMD1 and UD‐MTMD2), with the system parameters (mass, stiffness and damping coefficient) being, respectively, uniformly distributed around their average values, have been, for the first time here, proposed to seek for the MTMD models without the near‐zero optimum average damping ratio. The structure is represented by the mode‐generalized system corresponding to the specific vibration mode that needs to be controlled. Through minimization of the minimum values of the maximum dynamic magnification factors (DMF) of the structure with the eight MTMD models (i.e. through the implementation of Min.Min.Max.DMF), the optimum parameters and values of Min.Min.Max.DMF for these eight MTMD models are investigated to evaluate and compare their control performance. The optimum parameters include the optimum mass spacing, stiffness spacing, damping coefficient spacing, frequency spacing, average damping ratio and tuning frequency ratio. The six MTMD models without the near‐zero optimum average damping ratio (i.e. the UM‐MTMD1～UM‐MTMD3, US‐MTMD1, US‐MTMD2 and UD‐MTMD2) are found through extensive numerical analyses. Likewise, the optimum UM‐MTMD3 offers the higher effectiveness and robustness and requires the smaller damping with respect to the rest of the MTMD models in reducing the responses of structures subjected to earthquakes. Additionally, it is interesting to note, by comparing the optimum UM‐MTMD3 with the optimum MTMD‐1 recently investigated by the first author, that the effectiveness and robustness for the optimum UM‐MTMD3 is almost identical to that for the optimum MTMD‐1 (without inclusion of the optimum MTMD‐1 with the near‐zero optimum average damping ratio). Recognizing these performance benefits, it is preferable to employ the optimum UM‐MTMD3 or the optimum MTMD‐1 without the near‐zero optimum average damping ratio, when installing the MTMD for the suppression of undesirable oscillations of structures under earthquakes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.